ERICK TUKES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-08-16
No. 4D06-1798
Stevenson, C.J., Farmer, J., Taylor, J.
944 So. 2d 1066 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Court reversed summary denial of motion to correct illegal sentence for third-degree felony cocaine possession, holding trial court must attach record evidence supporting its denial rather than summarily dismissing the claim.


Holding

A trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient Rule 3.800(a) claim of illegal sentence rather than summarily denying it without evidentiary support.


Headnotes

[1] Trial court must attach portions of record conclusively refuting legally sufficient Rule 3.800(a) claim of illegal sentence or conduct evidentiary hearing rather than sum…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800(a) claim”

Court citing Johnson v. State for the requirement that trial courts provide record evidence when summarily denying sentencing correction motions.

Facts & Procedural History

Erick Tukes was sentenced for possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony, and filed a motion to correct illegal sentence raising claims of denial of…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Erick Tukes appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Tukes raised two claims in his motion: (1) denial of post-sentencing jail credit and (2) illegal sentencing in excess of the statutory maximum for a third degree felony (possession of cocaine). We affirm the summary denial of the first claim for the reasons set forth in the State’s response, but reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the second claim for failure of the court to attach record evidence to support its summary denial. See Fenelon v. State, 932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Johnson v. State, 665 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“holding that the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a legally sufficient 3.800(a) claim”). We deny the State’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to attach a copy of the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet to an amended order, pursuant to the “new policy” announced by the second district in Harvester v. State, 817 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting appellant’s second claim of an illegal sentence, if such records exist or an evidentiary hearing.

STEVENSON, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw